A former high school science teacher turned creation science evangelist told an audience at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee last Tuesday that evolution is the dumbest and most dangerous theory on planet Earth.

Kent Hovind, founder of Creation Science Evangelism, presented Creation or Evolution Which Has More Merit? to a standing-room only audience in the Union Ballroom on Dec. 6. The event was sponsored by the Apologetics Association, the organization that brought Baptist minister Tim Wilkins to UWM to speak about homosexuality in October.

No debate challengers

Members of the Apologetics Association (AA) contacted biology, chemistry and geology professors at UWM and throughout the UW System, inviting them to debate Hovind for an honorarium of $200 to be provided to the individual or group of individuals who agreed.

Before the event began, the No-Debater List, which was comprised of slides listing the names of UWM science professors who declined the invitation, was projected behind the stage.

Dustin Wales, AA president, said it was his biggest disappointment that no professor agreed to debate Hovind.

No professor wanted to defend his side, he said. I mean, we had seats reserved for their people cause I know one objection could have been Oh, its just a bunch of Christians. So we had seats reserved for them to bring people to make sure that its somewhat more equal, not just all against one. And still nobody would do it.

Biology professor Andrew Petto said: It is a pernicious lie that the Apologetics (Association) is spreading that no one responded to the challenge. Many of us (professors) did respond to the challenge; what we responded was, No, thank you. 

Petto, who has attended three of Hovinds performances, said that because Hovind presents misinterpretations, half truths and outright lies, professors at UWM decided not to accept his invitation to a debate.

In a nutshell, debates like this do not settle issues of scientific understanding, he said. Hovind and his arguments are not even in the same galaxy as legitimate scientific discourse. This is why the faculty here has universally decided not to engage Hovind. The result would be to give the appearance of a controversy where none exists.

He added, The faculty on campus is under no obligation to waste its time supporting Hovinds little charade.

Kent Hovind, a former high school science teacher turned creation science evangelist, said that evolution is the "dumbest and most dangerous theory on planet Earth" at a program in the Union on Dec. 6.

Hovind, however, is used to being turned down. Near the end of his speech, he said, Over 3,000 professors have refused to debate me. Why? Because Im not afraid of them.

No truths in textbooks

Hovind began his multimedia presentation by asserting that evolution is the dumbest and most dangerous theory used in the scientific community, but that he is not opposed to science.

Our ministry is not against science, but against using lies to prove things, he said. He followed this statement by citing biblical references to lies, which were projected onto screens behind him.

Hovind said: I am not trying to get evolution out of schools or to get creation in. We are trying to get lies out of textbooks. He added that if removing lies from textbooks leaves no evidence for evolutionists theory, then they should get a new theory.

He cited numerous state statutes that require that textbooks be accurate and up-to-date, but said these laws are clearly not enforced because the textbooks are filled with lies and are being taught to students.

Petto said it is inevitable that textbooks will contain some errors.

Sometimes, this is an oversight. Sometimes it is the result of the editorial and revision process. Sometimes it is the result of trying to portray a rich and complex idea in a very few words, he said.

The first lie Hovind presented concerned the formation of the Grand Canyon. He said that two people can look at the canyon. The person who believes in evolution would say, Wow, look what the Colorado River did for millions and millions of years. The Bible-believing Christian would say, Wow, look what the flood did in about 30 minutes.

To elaborate, Hovind discussed the geologic column  the chronologic arrangement of rock from oldest to youngest in which boundaries between different eras are marked by a change in the fossil record. He explained that it does not take millions of years to form layers of sedimentary rock.

You can get a jar of mud out of your yard, put some water in it, shake it up, set it down, and it will settle out into layers for you, he said. Hovind used this concept of hydrologic sorting to argue that the biblical flood is what was responsible for the formation of the Grand Canyons layers of sedimentary rock.

Hovind also criticized the concept of micro-evolution, or evolution on a small, species-level scale. He said that micro-evolution is, in fact, scientific, observable and testable. But, he said, it is also scriptural, as the Bible says, They bring forth after his kind.

Therefore, according to the Bible and micro-evolution, dogs produce a variety of dogs and they all have a common ancestor  a dog.

Hovind said, however, Charles Darwin made a giant leap of faith and logic from observing micro-evolution into believing in macro-evolution, or evolution above the species level. Hovind said that according to macro-evolution, birds and bananas are related if one goes back far enough in time, and the ancestor ultimately was a rock.

He concluded his speech by encouraging students to personally remove the lies from their textbooks and parents to lobby their school board for accurate textbooks.

Tear that page out of your book, he said. Would you leave that in there just to lie to the kids?

Faith, not science

Petto said Hovind believes the information in textbooks to be lies because his determination is grounded in faith, not science.

Make no mistake, this is not a determination made on the scientific evidence, but one in which he has decided on the basis of faith alone that the Bible is correct, and if the Bible is correct, then science must be wrong, he said.

Petto said Hovind misinterprets scientific information and then argues against his misinterpretation.

That is, of course, known as the straw man argument  great debating strategy, but nothing to do with what scientists actually say or do, he said. The bottom line here is that the science is irrelevant to his conclusions.

Another criticism of Hovinds presentation is his citation of pre-college textbooks. Following the event, an audience member said, I dont think using examples of grade school and high school biology can stand up to evolution.

Petto called this an interesting and effective rhetorical strategy and explained that Hovind is not arguing against science, but the textbook version of science.

The texts are not presenting the research results of the scientific community per se, but digesting and paraphrasing it in a way to make it more effective in learning science, he said. So, what (Hovind) is complaining about is not what science says, but what the textbooks say that science says.

Petto said this abbreviated version of scientific research is due, in part, to the editorial and production processes, which impose specific limits on what is included.

He added that grade school and high school textbooks tend to contain very general information about evolution and pressure from anti-evolutionists has weakened evolutionary discussion in textbooks.

Lower-level texts tend to be more general in their discussions of evolution and speak more vaguely of change over time and adaptation and so on, he said. Due to pressure by anti-evolutionists, textbook publishers tend to shy away from being too evolutionary in their texts The more pressure there is on schools and publishers, the weaker the evolution gets, and the weaker it gets, the more likely that it will not do a good job of representing the current consensus among biologists.

Debate offer still stands

Hovind has a standing offer of $250,000 for anyone who can give any empirical evidence (scientific proof) for evolution. According to Hovinds Web site, the offer demonstrates that the hypothesis of evolution is nothing more than a religious belief.

The Web site, www.drdino.com, says, Persons wishing to collect the $250,000 may submit their evidence in writing or schedule time for a public presentation. A committee of trained scientists will provide peer review of the evidence offered and, to the best of their ability, will be fair and honest in their evaluation and judgment as to the validity of the evidence presented.

Make it visible

Wales said the AAs goal in bringing Hovind to UWM was to crack the issue on campus and bring attention to the fallibility of evolution.

The ultimate goal was to say that, Gosh, evolution isnt as concrete as you say it is, and why do you get to teach everyone this non-concrete thing and then not defend it when someone comes and says your wrong?  he said. Its just absurd.

In a nutshell, debates like this do not settle issues of scientific understanding, he said. Hovind and his arguments are not even in the same galaxy as legitimate scientific discourse. This is why the faculty here has universally decided not to engage Hovind. The result would be to give the appearance of a controversy where none exists.

He added, The faculty on campus is under no obligation to waste its time supporting Hovinds little charade.

No professor wanted to defend his side, he said. I mean, we had seats reserved for their people cause I know one objection could have been Oh, its just a bunch of Christians. So we had seats reserved for them to bring people to make sure that its somewhat more equal, not just all against one. And still nobody would do it.

He lost me sooner. Once he started with all the accusations about lies, that turned me off. Even though one disagrees with the ToE, this is no way to start a debate. It damages his credibility. Actually, I did read further but was not impressed. *sigh*

24
posted on 12/17/2005 5:42:36 AM PST
by metmom
(Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)

I listened to two "brilliant" evolutionists who agreed hands down with Darwin....The problem with what I heard is it reduces man to "just a series of genetic events" and disconnects man from the wonders of the universe at large.

But that's the point I'm making. What if the only thing I did know about evolution is from some of these text books, which much of the information in them is pure B.S. and you and scientist know this!!

There are many factors and agendas in the LIE of evolution AS A FACT. Intellegent Design might not be pure science, but it holds as much validity as the TOE.

"But that's the point I'm making. What if the only thing I did know about evolution is from some of these text books..."

It's obvious that that is not where your *info* is from.

"There are many factors and agendas in the LIE of evolution AS A FACT. Intellegent Design might not be pure science, but it holds as much validity as the TOE."

Now, if you would sit down, count to ten, and maybe actually attempt to enlighten us as to just what it is that is wrong with evolution, maybe something good could come of this. Otherwise, your ranting and whining is only going to make you look like a 5 year old.

"Mutations are not evolution."

And nobody said that they were.

32
posted on 12/17/2005 6:06:47 AM PST
by CarolinaGuitarman
("There is a grandeur in this view of life...")

The fact is that Hovind was raided on 4/14/04. Seems he hasn't bothered to report some millions of dollars of gross income. Or bothered to withhold taxes on his employees.

IRS Special Agent Scott M. Schneider had this to say is his affidavit for a search warrant:

In summary, affiant states that based upon the information set forth above there is probable cause to believe that HOVIND has and is committing violations of Title 26, United States Code, Sections 7201 (Attempt to Evade or Defeat Tax), 7202 (Willful Failure to Pay Over or Collect Tax), 7203 (Willful Failure to File) and 7212(a) (Attempts to interfere With Administration of the Internal Revenue Laws) and that evidence of said violations can be found at and on the premises of 29 Cummings Road, Pensacola, Florida. Since 1997, HOVIND has engaged in financial transactions indicating sources of income and has made deposits to bank accounts well in excess of $1,000,000.00 per year during some of these years which would require the filing of federal income tax returns. Affiant has reason to believe that HOVIND has failed and continues to fail to withhold federal employment taxes from the individuals he employs at DAL and CSE. Affiant also has probable cause to believe that HOVIND, through his website writings and internet and bookstore sales, has continued to encourage others to attempt to evade taxes and willfully fail to file individual income tax returns in order to impede the lawful function of the Internal Revenue Service. Based upon the information provided herein, Affiant believes that there is probable cause to believe that evidence of these aforementioned violations, as specifically described in Attachment B, have been and are currently present at the locations of 29 Cummings Road, Pensacola, Florida, more specifically described in Attachment A.

So, there you have what the IRS Criminal Investigations Division is looking at.

They generally don't bother to raid people who have filed accurate personal returns.

They generally don't bother to raid employers who have accurately withheld and paid taxes on their employees.

The IRS would know whether or not he's filed the returns of which Schneider speaks, now, wouldn't they?

Nutball Hovind whined and bitched and moaned in court via a goofy pro se motion about the search warrant. He got exactly nowhere. What a surprise.

Thank you for providing a perfect example of your idiocy. It seems to extend not just to science, but also to tax law.

LOL. This is how Hovind makes a living - he doesn't speak for free. If you look up his tax lien (available here in PDF format) and then work the tax tables backwards (Hovind is married, right?), you realize that the IRS is calculating his 1995 income at about $430,000, 1996 at about $365,000, and 1997 at around $750,000.

Hovind filed an affidavit regarding his tax lien a few months ago (affidavit in PDF format), which is an amusing read for a few reasons. One is his claim of a "vow of poverty" he took in 1989. Two, his omission of the doctor in "Dr. Dino" - the only degree he mentions is a bachelor's of religious eduction from an unaccredited Bible college in Michigan. And three, his claim that ministering is not a "trade or business", hence income received from ministering is tax-exempt, and his apparent claim that being a self-employed minister makes one a church, and therefore all income is tax-exempt under 508(c)(1).

Now, if you would sit down, count to ten, and maybe actually attempt to enlighten us as to just what it is that is wrong with evolution,

Yeah...right!(for the millionth time) There is no SCIENTIFIC proof evolution is valid, yet it is taught in such a way that would lead a mind of mush to believe it is fact...and some evolutionist will flatty state it is FACT! For a scientist to take something that is not FACT and parade as if it were are not being true to their profession, or anyone else...

It's elistist minds being duped into an agenda, based on a huge lie. No different than liberals stating half truths and not admitting them as such.

Since I asked for some of your *facts* that disprove evolution, and all you have are more rants and whines, I will conclude you don't know of anything that goes against evolution or else you are too scared to post them. Either way, I win. :)

39
posted on 12/17/2005 6:30:03 AM PST
by CarolinaGuitarman
("There is a grandeur in this view of life...")

Yeah, like the "theory" our ears use to be fish gills. Don't you remember when your ancestors were swimin' around? Someone HAD to come up out of the water to take that first breath!

Of course there is evidence for that, wheras the grand canyon being created in 30 minutes is simply ludicrous. As if Hovinds example of layering of mud in a garden has anything to do with layering of hard rocks like limestone.

How do you provide FACTS which disprove something when there's no facts which prove the premise in the first place. Here I'll give you one fact that ends the debate.

Evolution can not be observed because of the "stated" amount of time it would take for one species to evolve into another. The only problem with this fact is the definition of "species." A dog, is a dog, is a dog.

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.